<br />Hoov's post on SA, might help with value's TBD in response to Re: Confidential Off-Takes-A Problem for Retail? by LTGoldBull2 posted on Dec 31, 13 10:06AM Use the IP Check tool [?] This is in response to Jabbermouths 2nd bash of ZEN... "Right near the beginning of your review, you so profoundly distort the truth, I struggle with the veracity of anything else you might have to say. You apparently can’t even copy numbers from a press release correctly. You said: ”The Albany graphite property, which some had speculated would contain as much as seven million tonnes of graphite, was shown to hold indicated resources of only 967,000 tonnes grading 3.6% graphitic carbon.“ The press release announcing the resource said: “RPA estimates Indicated Mineral Resources delineated to date total 25.1 million tonnes (“Mt”) at an average grade of 3.89% graphitic carbon (“Cg”), containing 977,000 tonnes of Cg.” Apart from the differences in contained tonnage and grade, do you note that your statement has also confounded two numbers, the resource tonnage and the contained tonnage? The grade of 3.89% applies to the resource tonnage (25.1 Mt), not to the contained tonnage (977 kt). The contained tonnage is the product of the indicated resource tonnage and the average grade in that category. Before I get into discussing your arguments, there is another correction to be made: Canada Carbon has not demonstrated Li-ion battery grade graphite. They have shown purity exceeding that required for nuclear applications. It would seem to me that your basic premise is that there is no proof before us that ZEN’s graphite might be worth $8500/tonne. On that, we agree. But I don’t know why you couldn’t have waited until the published Technical Report reveals the assumptions made by RPA before you jumped to conclusions. I’m a scientist, and I apply the scientific method to technical reporting of all kinds. And, with your background in engineering, I’m somewhat surprised to see that you have not also done so. It is a well know aphorism in science that, “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” The argument from ignorance is so well-known and well-recognized, even by the ancients, that it is still often referred to in the Latin, argumentum ad ignorantiam. That something has not yet been proven true, is not evidence that it is, in fact, false. When Don Hains answered an inquiry by saying that ZEN’s graphite has not yet been shown to be excluded from any application currently suitable for synthetic graphite, he was answering in the best way that a scientist could answer the question. Your characterization of his response as waffling, pleading ignorance, or avoidance, is pure sophistry, and quite unbecoming of a man of a technical background. You also spend a great deal of time trying to make economic comparisons of ZEN’s deposit with those of flake graphite deposits. Hydrothermal graphite has different properties from flake graphite, and those differences will determine the value. Many of those variables are still undetermined, but one critical variable is not, purity. The value of any graphite is exponential with respect to purity. Quoting average prices is irrelevant. ZEN reported a preliminary (i.e. non-optimized) metallurgical process, consisting of flotation and caustic roast, which resulted in purities of not less than 99.97% Cg. Industrial Minerals does not even provide a price for graphite of that purity, no matter the source, synthetic or natural. The 2012 European price reported by Industrial Minerals for 99.95% Cg synthetic was $7-20,000/tonne, though. $8500/tonne is looking to be on the low end of this price range. As an aside, I was in attendance at the Industrial Minerals Graphite and Graphene conference in NYC last month, and one of the most striking aspects for me, intellectually, is that so many industry folks still do not distinguish between the two types of natural graphite, flake and hydrothermal. Flake producers, or those who wish to become producers, should be profoundly concerned about Syrah's production plans, as they will also be producing a vanadium concentrate from the same ore. Net of vanadium credits, they estimated costs of around $100/tonne for flake, based on a production volume of around 300,000 tonnes/year of graphite flake concentrate. And ZEN may also have a co-production credit, as the caustic roast process will create an intermediate material, sodium silicate, which is used in the commercial production of high-purity silica products. In any case, silica and feldspar will be recovered from the caustic regeneration process, and thus a third off-take credit might be available, feldspar. Back to my critique. The pit model that accompanied the Resource Estimate was not intended to represent a mine plan. It was a conceptual illustration, meant to demonstrate the robustness of the economics of the deposit. It should have been instantly apparent to even the least technically inclined that the twin pits are enormous, that vast amounts of waste would have to be moved, that even a barren sill within each pit did not limit the depth of the pits. No one would actually build such a mine, though. The economics of underground techniques such as block caving would have been put into practice long before a pit of this size was excavated. In my humble opinion, the image was meant to startle readers. Moreover, the image was a Whittle Optimization. It took into account stripping costs, strip ratio, estimated milling and processing costs. Your decision to look at them separately was inappropriate. They’re already embedded in the model. The shell was that 3-dimensional excavated volume at which costs and revenues were equal, i.e. $8500/tonne, life of mine. The published resource numbers varied by only trivial amounts, when comparing cut-off grades of 0.4 to 1.0%. Even moving to a cut-off of 2% only reduced the contained resource by 6.5%, compared to that at 0.4%. This is an extremely robustly economic deposit. Virtually all mineralized rock is ore. I’m going to wait until I can read the final version of the Technical Report before I criticize RPA’s work, and if I have a problem with their assumptions, I’ll say so. I’m an evidence based analyst. What I will not do, unlike you, is jump to conclusions based on the lack of evidence." Lar I say this might be helpful with values because it tells us we really don't have a clue, however ANYTHING is possible and the talent we have attracted plus the Canadian grant points to "a robust deposit". Happy New Year everyone, be safe and have a wonderful 2014! Cheers, f TN